Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec

[Erik Lagerway <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Sean,

We can not support this draft at this time.

As RTC SDK vendors we very likely will support both codecs, but we can not
stand by a decision that will "impose" dual MTI on our developer community.

According to this, every dev must use both codecs for every app that is
built using our tools. Codec selection should be their choice and not be
forced upon them. This seems to be a rather unreasonable expectation.


*Erik Lagerway <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> | *Hookflash
<http://hookflash.com/>* | 1 (855) Hookflash ext. 2 | Twitter
<http://twitter.com/elagerway> | WebRTC.is Blog <http://webrtc.is/> *

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:

> All,
>
> At the 2nd RTCweb WG session @ IETF 91, we had a lively discussion about
> codecs, which I dubbed "the great codec compromise."  The compromise text
> that was discussed appears in slides 12-14 at [4] (which is a slight
> editorial variation of the text proposed at [2]).
>
> This message serves to confirm the sense of the room.
>
> In the room, I heard the following objections and responses (and I’m
> paraphrasing here), which I’ll take the liberty of categorizing as IPR,
> Time, and Trigger:
>
> 1) IPR:
>
> Objections: There are still IPR concerns which may restrict what a
> particular organization feels comfortable with including in their browser
> implementations.
>
> Response:  IPR concerns on this topic are well known.  There is even a
> draft summarizing the current IPR status for VP8:
> draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation.  The sense of the room was still that
> adopting the compromise text was appropriate.
>
> 2) Time:
>
> 2.1) Time to consider decision:
>
> Objection: The decision to consider the compromise proposal at this
> meeting was provided on short notice and did not provide some the
> opportunity to attend in person.
>
> Response:  Six months ago the chairs made it clear discussion would be
> revisited @ IETF 91 [0]. The first agenda proposal for the WG included this
> topic [1], and the topic was never removed by the chairs.    More
> importantly, all decisions are confirmed on list; in person attendance is
> not required to be part of the process.
>
> 2.2) Time to consider text:
>
> Objection: The proposed text [2] is too new to be considered.
>
> Response: The requirement for browsers to support both VP8 and H.264 was
> among the options in the straw poll conducted more than six months ago.
> All decisions are confirmed on list so there will be ample time to discuss
> the proposal.
>
> 3) Trigger:
>
> Objection: The “trigger” sentence [3] is all kinds of wrong because it’s
> promising that the future IETF will update this specification.
>
> Response: Like any IETF proposal, an RFC that documents the current
> proposal can be changed through the consensus process at any other time.
>
>
> After the discussion, some clarifying questions about the hums, and typing
> the hum questions on the screen, there was rough consensus in the room to
> add (aka “shove”) the proposed text into draft-ietf-rtcweb-video.  In
> keeping with IETF process, I am confirming this consensus call on the list.
>
> If anyone has any other issues that they would like to raise please do by
> December 19th.
>
> Cheers,
> spt (as chair)
>
> [0] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg11194.html
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13150.html
> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13432.html
> [3] The one that begins with "If compelling evidence ..."
> [4] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-rtcweb-7.pdf
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>